Martin Sebor wrote: > David Crossley wrote: > [...] > >The note that you have patched below is something > >that is listed under the "Resolved Issues" section. > >In my opinion that stuff should have been long ago > >moved to another file because it is old resolved issues. > >Those notes are not completely relevant now. > > David, thanks for the feedback! > > I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean. (Or maybe I just > misunderstand the purpose of the Resolved Issues section.) Are you > saying that the guidelines listed in the section may not be relevant > anymore, perhaps because they have been superseded by new ones? If > so, I would certainly agree that they should be removed.
Saying that things have probably changed since those older resolutions and new resolutions were not made, or rather probably not documented. > In addition, > I would argue that a better place for keeping track of Incubator > issues (both resolved and pending) is in Jira. The status file could > then simply include a couple of links to Jira queries, one for all > resolved issues and another for all pending issues: > > Pending issues: http://tinyurl.com/d3qwr > Resolved issues: http://tinyurl.com/7d2c3 > > >Lets backup a bit. > > > >You have raised two completely separate issues in the > >one email ... > > > >1) The STATUS file for the Incubator project as a whole > >is way out-of-date and is confusing. > > > >2) The requirements for each incubating project to > >declare their status, are misleading and confusing. > > > >These should be treated as two separate email topics. > > Perhaps. I presented (2) as evidence of (1). > > In any case how do you suggest I change the patch? Remove the whole > Resolved Issues section? It is not up to me. As a group, we need definite decisions on those two separate items, and then clearly document them. -David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
